Talk:Sentinels of Justice
Keep or delete? SoJ only appeared in AC Comics issue(s). It's neither Charlton nor DC. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 10:19, July 19, 2014 (UTC) :Obviously, I would say kee, since I put work into creating the page, like the other ones you've deleted. I don't see why one comic from a defunct company using characters now owned by DC is valid but another isn't. But what the hell, I'm not running things. Just wasting time and effort on work nobody appreciates, it seems. Tony ingram (talk) 10:30, July 19, 2014 (UTC) ::It would be okay for a Charlton Wiki or a Blue Beetle or Captain Atom wiki, but not for DC. Same as we wouldn't cover Kitchen Sink's Spirit. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 10:36, July 19, 2014 (UTC) Of course. Because this wiki is more concerned with enforcing petty, pointless rules than with actual relevant information. The only thing I don't understand is why you've arbitrarily decided to destroy my work now rather than when it was created, years ago. Whatever. I wn't bother next time. I've half a mind to delete every entry I've ever made here. Tony ingram (talk) 10:49, July 19, 2014 (UTC) I notice my page for the FDan Garret robot, an entry I was actually very fond of, has been deleted too. Thanks so ****ing much.Tony ingram (talk) 11:06, July 19, 2014 (UTC) :Don't take things personally. We revise our policies plenty of times. We've gotten rid of MLJ. There are Earth-X discussions (not very active, but still). And we've had several Fawcett and Charlton discussions about what we should and should not cover. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 11:10, July 19, 2014 (UTC) When pdestroy my work without consulting me, I take that personally. I'm sick of this high handed attitude. When I joined this site, it useed to be fun. Now, it's nothing but pointless rules and restrictions, sucking all the joy out of it. Same reason I stopped contributing to the Marvel wiki on a regular basis, and didn't go there at all for a couple of years. Just mean spirited, petty minded crap, no regard for any contributor as an individual.[[User:Tony ingram|Tony ingram] (talk) 11:18, July 19, 2014 (UTC) :Tony, I don't think it's petty minded, mean spirited, spiteful, a personal vendetta, or anything along those lines. It's part and parcel of working on a wiki, any wiki. One of the fundamentals is that once you hit the "Publish" button, what you've provided is no longer yours. It can be edited, expanded, trimmed, embellished, or even removed without your consent. Getting pissed off over it - and we all do from time to time - doesn't help. Lashing out on the talk pages helps even less. :And requesting or demanding all content you've provided - https://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:397063 - is a non-starter. You've given the content over to the wiki so you no longer have that degree of control. And stating or threatening to do it yourself is, sadly, tantamount to saying you are willing to vandalized the wiki out of a fit of pique. :As for the evolving scope of this wiki, it's happened and is both a good and a bad thing. With minimal or no limits - the situation IIUC that existed when the wiki started - there ends up being a lot of stuff added that is, at best, tenuously related to DC. The fan films, fan fics, unlicensed porn "parodies", Spider-Man, Captain America, Spawn, Earth-Marvel, Earth-McFarlane, characters licensed from other publishers, public domain derived publications, ancillary characters and books that never really appear in DC publications, and so on. The level of noise to signal became a problem and the admins felt they need, rightly, to draw a line as to what constitutes the scope of a "DC Comics Database". That in and of itself is a good thing. It provides a frame work for editors to operate in and, in theory, would limit the creation of pages that would ultimately be deleted. It does though present some down sides: :* Unlike Wikipedia editors have minimal say in the matter. Yes, we can voice opinions, but in most of the discussions of scope it has been about how to implement the change, not to stop the change. :* It does create holes since some appearances of some characters won't be addressed or some characters won't get character pages at all. :* And since the limit was added after the fact, there are articles that have to be looked at and ultimately severely edited, redirected, and/or deleted. :The net result is that characters from the comics published by MLJ are gone. So are most of the character pages for stuff DC printed under license such as the Edgar Rice Burrows characters. And anything Fawcette or Quality either published under license or didn't sell to DC. :This also affects the Charlton characters and AC. IIUC DC bought Charlton's IPs, copyrights, and trademarks. It didn't get things that Charlton didn't own. AC published the SoJ in a bit of a grey area - either believing the characters had been put into the public domain or that they had licensed them from Charlton or its trustee. When all was said and done DC didn't get the AC stuff and point blank ignored it. Earth-Four was minimally fleshed out in CoIE and didn't include the AC material. Placing it there is fan theory at best. And as an aside, the same goes for AC's Phantom Lady/Blue Bulleteer - it created the character based on the pre-Quality appearances of the character having apparently fallen into PD. They changed the name to write around DC's trademark rather than go to the expenses of fighting the case in court. What AC published though is not part of what DC owns and not within the current scope of this wiki. :- Byfield (talk) 13:21, July 19, 2014 (UTC) It's still bloody pathetic, in my opinion. That material being there harmed nobody, it had no downside, it merely provided more information that might have been of interest to someone. Removing it to comply with some arbitrary rule is pointless, shows a disregard for the feelings of the people who spent time and effort creating it, and lessens the database as a whole. Information does not exist in a vacuum. The field of comics is a huge one, and pretty much everything is interlinked on some level. And comics is what I am interested in: comics as art, comics as literature, comics characters, comics creators and comics history. What I don't give a monkey's about is publishing companies, because they are irrelevant except as a means of getting material out there. So, this place is only supposed to deal with stuff created by DC Comics? Fine. Delete everything created in the Golden Age for a start, because DC Comics as a corporate entity didn't exist then. Or in the Silver Age either. The company that published the original Green Lantern's series was not DC Comics, so that series shouldn't be here any more than the Fox Phantom Lady. Come to think of it, even the DC Comics that exists today is not precisely the same company it was when the name was made official. You could have had a huge resource here, a research tool for those interested in comics history as a whole. but instead it's been hamstrung by nonsensical restrictions and mean minded attitudes. And as far as I'm concerned, my work is my work, to do with as I wish-that's the position under UK copyright law, I believe, and that's where I am. Tony ingram (talk) 16:02, July 19, 2014 (UTC) :This wiki operates under U.S. copyright law, regardless of where you are. This is true of most of the internet, sadly (or not?). The truth of it is that you do own your contributions - but there is a caveat: "although you are the owner of the copyright, you have given blanket permission to the world at large to reuse, remix, and transform your work as long as you are attributed as the author." That is the gist of the CC-BY-SA copyright under which you edit on any wikia-owned wiki. It is yours to do with as you wish - but it also ours to do with as we wish, and you have implicitly given consent for us to do so by editing here. - Hatebunny (talk) 16:23, July 19, 2014 (UTC) ::The material didn't harm anyone. That wasn't the point. The point is that it doesn't fit the scope of what we are covering. Has the scope changed since the early days of the site? Yes, it has. That isn't a bad thing. Does that mean we need to get nitpicky about when DC came into existence? No. As for the current universe, it's no secret you don't like it. Fine, continue to read older books. If you want to cover comics as a medium, work on wikipedia or find a site that covers the whole thing. Our site focuses on DC. If you'd like to remove all your contributions, you're welcome to try. Like it or not, they are part of the site now. Removing them all now is considered vandalism and you will be blocked. Kyletheobald (talk) 16:27, July 19, 2014 (UTC) Block me then. I should never have wasted my time here, and I do not like being threatened. Tony ingram (talk) :I believe you threatened first. My statement isn't a threat; it is the consequences of removing edits (vandalism). Kyletheobald (talk) 16:40, July 19, 2014 (UTC) ::Agreed. Tony, you made a threat, whether you see it as such or not. All Kyle pointed out is the result to you for carrying out your threat. That's the same as in any social setting - here are the rules and here are the consequences of deliberately braking them. ::As for the bit about DC not existing... Sorry but that sounds like you being deliberately thick. Yes, "DC" as a corporate name did not exist in 1935. And it didn't appear as a brand until c.1940. However, "DC Comics" has generally been used to cover the material the company has acquired of the years through mergers and purchases. Some of those cases were not all inclusive with DC either picking amount the properties purchased or material related to the property were not included as the company being bought out/merged didn't own them. Phantom Lady, the original Blue Beetle, and Peter Cannon are examples of this. Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, captain Marvel, and many, many more are not. ::And to be honest, I don't think the "It didn't harm anyone" completely washes. In and of themselves an individual article devoted to a parody, non-DC owned character, fan work, or what ever may do no harm. But, they are used as a justification or excuse to add more of the same, potentially to the detriment of this wiki's primary focus. Again, the noise to signal ratio. ::- Byfield (talk) 17:13, July 19, 2014 (UTC) I do not agree. But that's obviously irrelevant since you don't have any regard for the opinions of any contributor outside your little clique. I'll be taking advice on the legalities mentioned above. Tony ingram (talk) 17:26, July 19, 2014 (UTC) :DC does own the Sentinels of Justice team concept and it is a valid part of Earth-Four. When DC bought the Charlton heroes, this story came along since it was produced by AC under a license from Charlton. (I think the trademarked phrase "Sentinels of Justice" is owned by AC and they have in fact reused it for another team.) Now, when DC bought the Charlton heroes, the fan press asked them if they were going to keep the AC comics stories in continuity, and DC said "No, we will ignore them". But then DC had Crisis on Infinite Earths and basically threw all of Earth-Four out of continuity! Under those circumstances, I see no problem in keeping the Sentinels of Justice in continuity on Earth-Four, and keeping this page. Shadzane (talk) 00:17, July 22, 2014 (UTC) ::First off, don't reformat other editors' posts. Even if you don't like the page flow. It ain't your job or right. And frankly, what you left would have been outdented to avoid the crush to the right you left behind. ::Second, it's still fanwank. If DC's statement was that the AC stories were not part of the Charlton canon they were going to use, it doesn't get welded in by fans any way. If DC had name dropped the Earth-Four team in CoIE, it would be fair game. They didn't, so assuming an editorial backtracking isn't. ::- Byfield (talk) 02:45, July 22, 2014 (UTC) :::I'm not saying DC has backtracked, I'm saying that DC stopped caring once Crisis was done (in 1985). Like it or not, it's up to us now. Shadzane (talk) 16:44, July 22, 2014 (UTC) ::::Um... no. Or at least not here. ::::There are a lot of thing that DC over just shy of a hundred years of existence has stopped caring about. Those do open the door in part for fan debate, fan conjecture, fan theory, fanfic, and fanwank. It doesn't make this the place to add it in. As pointed out up thread, it would fit on a Charlton or AC wiki or broader ones covering American, North American, or all comics. But even with those there would be a difference between actual use of the characters and concepts - what was actually printed and what was intended - and what is read into the stories. ::::- Byfield (talk) 21:34, July 22, 2014 (UTC) I would argue for keeping this article. I understand not wanting to use material not published by DC but this case is different. With The Spirit and MLJ examples mentioned above, those were licensed characters who rights were clawed back by their owners and given to other publishers. In this case, the characters are owned by and have a permanent home at DC. Therefore their entire publication history is now relevant as a DC property. Also, the Sentinels of Justice story that was published by AC was officially licensed to them by Charlton. It was originally scheduled to run in the Charlton Bullseye but when that book was cancelled, Charlton allowed AC to publish their already finished work on their own before selling the characters to DC. That makes the AC book as relevant as any book Charlton published. Stinger80 (talk) 19:11, July 27, 2014 (UTC) :I didn't know the Sentinels of Justice story was originally prepared at Charlton and then just published by AC when Charlton stopped publishing. Knowing that, I feel even more that it is OK to appear here (and puzzled about why DC rejected it in the first place). Shadzane (talk) 19:43, July 27, 2014 (UTC) ::Hrm... I'd like to see the source for the story being "in hand" for Charlton Bullseye when they stopped publishing. ::Beyond that... it may be DC already knew how they were going to integrate the character into the DCU with Crisis and SoJ just didn't fit. So not so much not caring but not wanting. - Byfield (talk) 19:58, July 27, 2014 (UTC) With Americomics Special #1 being reprinted in Road to Watchmen: The Question & Blue Beetlehttps://www.amazon.com/Road-Watchmen-Rorschach-Nite-Owl/dp/1401298893 I believe this page should be undeleted. DC is officially acknowledging its existence an reprinting the work. Stinger80 (talk) 04:45, April 4, 2019 (UTC) :That's a collection. DC has produced plenty of collections of stuff that they didn't originally publish - 2000AD, Métal hurlant, etc. They even published collections of some of Marvel's Tarzan stuff. It just means they have the license to reprint it, it doesn't explicitly make it their IP. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 14:32, April 4, 2019 (UTC)